You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Reletivism, whether cultural, individual, or otherwise, is a set of philosophical proposals that there are multiple acceptable and competing ethical evaluations based on whatever criteria the reletavist is using (culture is the most common). In the research given, it is not the case that the researchers are concluding that there are multiple acceptable moral values for a given action, but rather that forces can manipulate the expected response. If nothing else, all of the subjects were consistent in their answers and that consistency was purely consequentionalist with no appeal toward reletive ethics whatsoever. I've looked at a few of your posts before deciding whether to respond and after seeing you go after this reletivisim idea a few times, I felt compelled to seek some clarification.
... and your argument would be wrong (no offense). Imagine a friend who is about to be killed. You could kill the would be killer and save your friend or you could let the scenario unfold naturally. Either choice causes harm by either allowing the death of a friend or causing the death of the killer. Even solid consequentionalists like Mill argued that when given a choice between actions, the moral road is not merely to minimize suffering but also to maximize happiness. Given for any choice that an action is either moral or not moral (law of the excluded middle), if two possible actions both yield no suffering or harm, then the moral choice is the action that then maximized happiness.
Again, that's if you believe all that utilitarian garbage. What consequentionalist ethics does not address is the "accidental moral choice" where an unintended consequence makes an immorally intended act moral. Imagine that you see an enemy on the street and you go to puch him in the face. You miss and knock out a guy who has your enemy held up at gunpoint. In effect, you've saved your enemy's life even though the intent was to cause harm. Clearly, this cannot be a moral act. By example, one can understand that purely reviewing the consequences of an action cannot define that action moral or immoral.
Let's assume I get on a toll road and pay my $0.06/mile (roughly) which is a fee whose stated purpose is for maintenance, repair, and depreciation. Let's also assume that the mileage tax is in place, whose stated purpose is for maintenance, repair, and depreciation of the roadway. So, I drive 30 miles on the toll road, and pay about $1.80 in tolls. I then pay my $0.02/mile tax, which amounts to about $0.60.
Alright, so with the scenario laid out, two things should be glaringly obvious. First, the amount of money the mileage tax takes in, as a means of ensuring upkeep on the tollroad plus as a cost offset for the upkeep of significantly less traveled roads is 1/3 of what we pay in tolls. One has to wonder why the tollway needs 3X as much money to upkeep their roads. Second, government is excellent at implementing taxes and fees and other revenue generating schemes, but they are reluctant to get rid of such programs. Understanding that in all likelihood, I will be paying a toll and a tax that independently serve exact same purpose seems unreasonable.
Santa Rosa Junior College is threatening to sue several hundred students and faculty members who have created private e-mail addresses that use the collegeâ(TM)s name without permission.
Now, it sounds to me like the cease and desist was sent to students and staff, not to the actual offending email addresses. In fact, this is supported a few paragraphs down...
The college offered little explanation when it announced the crackdown in e-mail messages sent to all faculty Tuesday and people it had identified as violators of its new policy.
In summary, you are wrong. Have a nice day.
The bigger the theory the better.